(02-17-2018 06:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Miami needs to either pay up or suit up and play the game in Jonesboro that they agreed to play. If they would have done a buy game with Arkansas St in 2014 that game would cost them $1.5 million--$600 thousand years later is flat out robbery and they don't even want to pay that.

Yes there was a hurricane--even non-lawyers can agree on that. But was the game impossible to play? Arkansas St has a solid case that it was indeed possible to play that game--case in point FIU and FAU both traveled to play games that weekend.

As has been explained, different institutions, even those near each other, can have different logistical considerations.

Also, just because FIU and FAU played doesn't make Miami not playing unreasonable. FIU and FAU might have acted too riskily, e.g., imagine if you and two friends have a revolver with one bullet in it, and they decide to play a round of Russian Roulette while you decide that's stupidly risky and refuse to. If they each spin the chamber and pull the trigger and survive, does that mean you were wrong not to do it too? Of course not.

AState has filed in court, which is a pretty strong indication that they like their chances in court. More importantly, its a very strong indication that they believe they are virtually guaranteed of doing better in court than they would dealing directly with Miami...which tells me that Miami has probably been even harder to deal with than it would appear. My guess is that lack of cooperation will very much work against Miami in court. I wouldnt be surprised to learn the Miami 2024 schedule date offer is also contingent on a lower (or complete elimination of) the cancellation fee.

It’s unfortunate but a blackballing is appropriate.

This isn’t a clear cut case. It’s at its core just butthurt.

I finally found something to make me root for the U.

I don’t know where this is at in terms of its current disposition but I doubt this stays in state court.

(02-17-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s unfortunate but a blackballing is appropriate.

This isn’t a clear cut case. It’s at its core just butthurt.

I finally found something to make me root for the U.

I don’t know where this is at in terms of its current disposition but I doubt this stays in state court.

lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

(02-17-2018 01:23 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 08:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Suit filed in Jonesboro
https://247sports.com/college/arkansas-s...-115211382

Hey it least it is better than B12 expansion talk.

I have not heard anything to this effect from anyone at AState other than a comment from the AD made off hand in a conversation about the buyout amount and time involved plus his mention of Toledo demanding a larger buyout in exchange for allowing Miami to push back the date of their trip to Miami.

Based on completely raw conjecture, I think AState and Miami will settle on 2024 or 2026 with a larger buyout and clear terms about notification of cancellation.

AState hosts Iowa State in 2025 so hosting Miami in 2024 or 2025 insures consecutive seasons of a P5.

That is what should have been done in the first place. Makes no sense why Miami and ASU would not do this in the first place. Seems like an old fashion pissing contest.

Most of this comes down to Miami's attitude about the game. As if they are doing us a favor by gracing our city with their presence.

If they'd accept a larger buyout and stricter contractual terms, we're probably agreeable with 2024. But as much as they've hinted that they'd love to get out of this game over the months prior to the cancellation, any school with half a brain would request far different contract terms than the original deal had.

The sad fact of the matter is they were gracing you with their presence—and their cash.

(02-17-2018 06:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Miami needs to either pay up or suit up and play the game in Jonesboro that they agreed to play. If they would have done a buy game with Arkansas St in 2014 that game would cost them $1.5 million--$600 thousand years later is flat out robbery and they don't even want to pay that.

Yes there was a hurricane--even non-lawyers can agree on that. But was the game impossible to play? Arkansas St has a solid case that it was indeed possible to play that game--case in point FIU and FAU both traveled to play games that weekend.

As has been explained, different institutions, even those near each other, can have different logistical considerations.

Also, just because FIU and FAU played doesn't make Miami not playing unreasonable. FIU and FAU might have acted too riskily, e.g., imagine if you and two friends have a revolver with one bullet in it, and they decide to play a round of Russian Roulette while you decide that's stupidly risky and refuse to. If they each spin the chamber and pull the trigger and survive, does that mean you were wrong not to do it too? Of course not.

“We let our players choose,” Richt said. “We decided to break camp and we wanted everyone to have time to get with their families and make decisions about what was best for them. Same thing with the coaches and staff. We wanted our coaches to be with their families and help batten down the hatches.”

“Could we have snuck out just in time to play that game? We could have, logistically. But in the meantime, if you’re a coach and you’re going to put in 12-hour days and give the time that it takes to prepare for a game like that … then who’s helping your wife get things done? The last thing I wanted, the thing that was kind of the deciding factor for me was, I didn’t want to have a team in Memphis or Arkansas while all heck’s breaking loose with everybody’s families. I didn’t want my players looking at me like, ‘Coach, why are we here? What are we doing?’

That's not "impossible" to play. That is a decision. Probably the right decision. But not impossible.

The clause further states. "Any games not played as scheduled as such exigencies may dictate or permit.
Such exigency is the conditions that caused the cancellation. The exigency ended and when it did the time to reschedule arrived. Miami wanted to wait to discuss even though the exigency had ended and such a wait was agreeable. The only thing blocking a fairly prompt rescheduling is that Miami wants to wait longer to suit its own purposes.

(02-17-2018 07:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s unfortunate but a blackballing is appropriate.

This isn’t a clear cut case. It’s at its core just butthurt.

I finally found something to make me root for the U.

I don’t know where this is at in terms of its current disposition but I doubt this stays in state court.

lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

Not really...

(02-17-2018 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s unfortunate but a blackballing is appropriate.

This isn’t a clear cut case. It’s at its core just butthurt.

I finally found something to make me root for the U.

I don’t know where this is at in terms of its current disposition but I doubt this stays in state court.

lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

Not really...

I think AStatefan said the official Miami position is rescheduling is a courtesy and they owe nothing. Hurricanes are common in that area, especially in September. Most G5's will be thinking twice about home-and-homes with Miami where they play Miami first. Look, those G5-P5 deals have always been subject to getting cancelled if you play at the P5 house first---thats not really new. The G5 at least got the cancellation fee. But now Miami is trying to figure a way to get the freebie. I suspect there will be lots of new language in any contract with Miami from now on. The whole thing seems weird to me. Is Miami having money issues?

(02-17-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s unfortunate but a blackballing is appropriate.

This isn’t a clear cut case. It’s at its core just butthurt.

I finally found something to make me root for the U.

I don’t know where this is at in terms of its current disposition but I doubt this stays in state court.

lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

Not really...

I think AStatefan said the official Miami position is rescheduling is a courtesy and they owe nothing. Hurricanes are common in that area, especially in September. Most G5's will be thinking twice about home-and-homes with Miami where they play Miami first. Look, those G5-P5 deals have always been subject to getting cancelled if you play at the P5 house first---thats not really new. The G5 at least got the cancellation fee. But now Miami is trying to figure a way to get the freebie. I suspect there will be lots of new language in any contract with Miami from now on. The whole thing seems weird to me. Is Miami having money issues?

It will certainly be interesting to watch this progress.

I see this as ASTATE being small.

(02-17-2018 07:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 06:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Miami needs to either pay up or suit up and play the game in Jonesboro that they agreed to play. If they would have done a buy game with Arkansas St in 2014 that game would cost them $1.5 million--$600 thousand years later is flat out robbery and they don't even want to pay that.

Yes there was a hurricane--even non-lawyers can agree on that. But was the game impossible to play? Arkansas St has a solid case that it was indeed possible to play that game--case in point FIU and FAU both traveled to play games that weekend.

As has been explained, different institutions, even those near each other, can have different logistical considerations.

Also, just because FIU and FAU played doesn't make Miami not playing unreasonable. FIU and FAU might have acted too riskily, e.g., imagine if you and two friends have a revolver with one bullet in it, and they decide to play a round of Russian Roulette while you decide that's stupidly risky and refuse to. If they each spin the chamber and pull the trigger and survive, does that mean you were wrong not to do it too? Of course not.

“We let our players choose,” Richt said. “We decided to break camp and we wanted everyone to have time to get with their families and make decisions about what was best for them. Same thing with the coaches and staff. We wanted our coaches to be with their families and help batten down the hatches.”

“Could we have snuck out just in time to play that game? We could have, logistically. But in the meantime, if you’re a coach and you’re going to put in 12-hour days and give the time that it takes to prepare for a game like that … then who’s helping your wife get things done? The last thing I wanted, the thing that was kind of the deciding factor for me was, I didn’t want to have a team in Memphis or Arkansas while all heck’s breaking loose with everybody’s families. I didn’t want my players looking at me like, ‘Coach, why are we here? What are we doing?’

That's not "impossible" to play. That is a decision. Probably the right decision. But not impossible.

The clause further states. "Any games not played as scheduled as such exigencies may dictate or permit.
Such exigency is the conditions that caused the cancellation. The exigency ended and when it did the time to reschedule arrived. Miami wanted to wait to discuss even though the exigency had ended and such a wait was agreeable. The only thing blocking a fairly prompt rescheduling is that Miami wants to wait longer to suit its own purposes.

We'll see what happens, but ..

1) I doubt a judge will read the term "impossible" in any kind of strict way. In emergency situations, decision makers erring on the side of safety are generally given the widest possible leeway. Judges are loathe to second-guess those decisions from the safety of a later point in time. It's kind of like when review boards are judging the decisions made by police officers or military men who acted in the heat of battle - unless the cops or troops did something obviously egregiously wrong, they are likely to get off even if on the face of it their judgment seems suspect. It has to be almost ridiculously wrong to get them in trouble, because the reviewers tend to be very mindful of the fact that they had to act quickly under strained circumstances.

2) To me, the quotes from Richt indicate the gravity of the situation and the reasonableness of their decision. But, even if you think Richt's account indicates he felt it was reasonably possible to play the game, Richt isn't the responsible decision maker here. He doesn't have responsibility for the entire university, including how athletic activities fit into the totality of the university's hurricane mobilization, so his POV is limited and not reflective of all the considerations the university leadership had to account for. It's like quoting a burger-flipper at McDonalds about whether the store could have stayed open during a flood. They don't have the all the information that the manager has, nor the manage'rs overall responsibility, to have an reliable opinion.

3) The contract does say that if a game is canceled, discussions are to be held in a timely manner to reschedule the game. To my knowledge, that appears to be what happened. It's not like Miami has refused to take ARK-State's phone calls the past five months, the letters published indicate that the two schools have had pretty extensive talks about it, they just haven't been able to agree on a mutually acceptable date. That isn't necessarily Miami's fault, as the contract doesn't say the rescheduled game has to be whatever ARK-State wants.

4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Did you skip the discussion of Article IV section one when you were taking Constitutional Law?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

All that is required is for a copy of the Arkansas judgment to be filed in Florida and it is a Florida judgment but if for some reason Florida doesn't adhere to the US Constitution it can be filed in North Carolina and served upon the ACC based upon the belief that the ACC holds funds owed to the university that can be garnished.

(02-17-2018 08:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It’s unfortunate but a blackballing is appropriate.

This isn’t a clear cut case. It’s at its core just butthurt.

I finally found something to make me root for the U.

I don’t know where this is at in terms of its current disposition but I doubt this stays in state court.

lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

Not really...

I think AStatefan said the official Miami position is rescheduling is a courtesy and they owe nothing. Hurricanes are common in that area, especially in September. Most G5's will be thinking twice about home-and-homes with Miami where they play Miami first. Look, those G5-P5 deals have always been subject to getting cancelled if you play at the P5 house first---thats not really new. The G5 at least got the cancellation fee. But now Miami is trying to figure a way to get the freebie. I suspect there will be lots of new language in any contract with Miami from now on. The whole thing seems weird to me. Is Miami having money issues?

It will certainly be interesting to watch this progress.

I see this as ASTATE being small.

Small? I think you're being obtuse here. The revenues from a home game against a P5 represent a significant sum for the Red Wolves' athletic department. The officials at Arkansas St are trying to ensure their kids have uniforms to wear, travel expenses covered, and salaries for the medical staff that keep their kids healthy and Miami's response has been "not our problem". They need to have cash flow to make that happen.

Miami, not Arkansas St, will be the one that gets blackballed here. No one wants to work with a school who looks for every opportunity to weasel out of their obligations and try to get home games for free.

(02-18-2018 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Good point, I stand corrected on (4) above.

(02-18-2018 08:49 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

Not really...

I think AStatefan said the official Miami position is rescheduling is a courtesy and they owe nothing. Hurricanes are common in that area, especially in September. Most G5's will be thinking twice about home-and-homes with Miami where they play Miami first. Look, those G5-P5 deals have always been subject to getting cancelled if you play at the P5 house first---thats not really new. The G5 at least got the cancellation fee. But now Miami is trying to figure a way to get the freebie. I suspect there will be lots of new language in any contract with Miami from now on. The whole thing seems weird to me. Is Miami having money issues?

It will certainly be interesting to watch this progress.

I see this as ASTATE being small.

Small? I think you're being obtuse here. The revenues from a home game against a P5 represent a significant sum for the Red Wolves' athletic department. The officials at Arkansas St are trying to ensure their kids have uniforms to wear, travel expenses covered, and salaries for the medical staff that keep their kids healthy and Miami's response has been "not our problem". They need to have cash flow to make that happen.

Miami, not Arkansas St, will be the one that gets blackballed here. No one wants to work with a school who looks for every opportunity to weasel out of their obligations and try to get home games for free.

No, HoD is correct. ARK-State suffered bad publicity last fall when they whined about the canceled game, and it won't go any better for them now.

It's just bad form to badger an institution that had to endure a natural disaster about something as trivial as a football game. In the scheme of things, the health of any athletic department is small potatoes.

IMO, nobody will blackball Miami, heck a big-time program like that wouldn't get blackballed even if they were dead wrong. But ARK-State could face a backlash when trying to secure money games with P5.

(02-18-2018 08:49 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 07:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...Its actually typical "U" behavior. They are trying to steal a free buy game.

Not really...

I think AStatefan said the official Miami position is rescheduling is a courtesy and they owe nothing. Hurricanes are common in that area, especially in September. Most G5's will be thinking twice about home-and-homes with Miami where they play Miami first. Look, those G5-P5 deals have always been subject to getting cancelled if you play at the P5 house first---thats not really new. The G5 at least got the cancellation fee. But now Miami is trying to figure a way to get the freebie. I suspect there will be lots of new language in any contract with Miami from now on. The whole thing seems weird to me. Is Miami having money issues?

It will certainly be interesting to watch this progress.

I see this as ASTATE being small.

Small? I think you're being obtuse here. The revenues from a home game against a P5 represent a significant sum for the Red Wolves' athletic department. The officials at Arkansas St are trying to ensure their kids have uniforms to wear, travel expenses covered, and salaries for the medical staff that keep their kids healthy and Miami's response has been "not our problem". They need to have cash flow to make that happen.

Miami, not Arkansas St, will be the one that gets blackballed here. No one wants to work with a school who looks for every opportunity to weasel out of their obligations and try to get home games for free.

Obtuse?

Do you remember the hurricane?

ASTATE’s nasty little attitude about this is petty and small.

Maybe it’s just a pissing contest between two ADs, or somebody else, who hate one another but in the end ASTATE looks bad here.

The only people pulling for ASTATE in this seem to be the G5 militarists.

The lawsuit, as it was filed, reads poorly. At its core it says they say it was impossible but “nuh-uh!”

(02-18-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Good point, I stand corrected on (4) above.

That’s probably not going to be an issue anyways.

If the contract doesn’t have a forum selection clause then it’s like this ends up in Federal Court since it meets the standards for diversity jurisdiction.

(02-18-2018 11:25 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Good point, I stand corrected on (4) above.

That’s probably not going to be an issue anyways.

If the contract doesn’t have a forum selection clause then it’s like this ends up in Federal Court since it meets the standards for diversity jurisdiction.

That would be fair. Otherwise, a state court - either Florida or Arkansas - might be tilted or biased towards the institution that resides there.

(02-18-2018 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Did you skip the discussion of Article IV section one when you were taking Constitutional Law?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

All that is required is for a copy of the Arkansas judgment to be filed in Florida and it is a Florida judgment but if for some reason Florida doesn't adhere to the US Constitution it can be filed in North Carolina and served upon the ACC based upon the belief that the ACC holds funds owed to the university that can be garnished.

Okay this is rich, when I asked could the ACC be brought in since it was an ACC contract and the case to NC, the ASU fans stated the ACC has nothing to do with it. Now the opposite is being stated. ACC lawyers would likely get this moved to a North Carolina Court and bring out the shark lawyers if ASU goes this route.

Miami: Do the honorable thing and play the game at Arkansas St or pay them.
My goodness, is there any decency left today?????

(02-18-2018 01:08 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Did you skip the discussion of Article IV section one when you were taking Constitutional Law?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

All that is required is for a copy of the Arkansas judgment to be filed in Florida and it is a Florida judgment but if for some reason Florida doesn't adhere to the US Constitution it can be filed in North Carolina and served upon the ACC based upon the belief that the ACC holds funds owed to the university that can be garnished.

Okay this is rich, when I asked could the ACC be brought in since it was an ACC contract and the case to NC, the ASU fans stated the ACC has nothing to do with it. Now the opposite is being stated. ACC lawyers would likely get this moved to a North Carolina Court and bring out the shark lawyers if ASU goes this route.

Link to ACC intervention and theory of jurisdiction and venue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-18-2018 01:08 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 02:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  4) How on will ARK-State collect on an Arkansas court judgement vs Miami anyway? I'm not sure Miami has any property in Arkansas to enjoin, and Florida administrative bodies may not be sympathetic in helping enforce an Arkansas judgment against one of their own.

Did you skip the discussion of Article IV section one when you were taking Constitutional Law?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

All that is required is for a copy of the Arkansas judgment to be filed in Florida and it is a Florida judgment but if for some reason Florida doesn't adhere to the US Constitution it can be filed in North Carolina and served upon the ACC based upon the belief that the ACC holds funds owed to the university that can be garnished.

Okay this is rich, when I asked could the ACC be brought in since it was an ACC contract and the case to NC, the ASU fans stated the ACC has nothing to do with it. Now the opposite is being stated. ACC lawyers would likely get this moved to a North Carolina Court and bring out the shark lawyers if ASU goes this route.

Because the ACC has nothing to do with the actual contract and would not be either the plaintiff or defendant in the lawsuit. The ACC would only possibly be involved if Miami refused to pay the court order and the Florida courts refused to enforce the order. Then an OPTION for AState would be to ask for N Carolina courts to enforce the Arkansas court order by garnishing the Miami share of the ACC payout. Its no different than a child support case. Walmart isnt going to be part of the divorce and custody hearings in a divorce case just because the father works there---but Walmart might be ordered by the court to garnish the fathers wages at some later date if the father fails to pay his court ordered child support.